[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Get rid of the lib64 dir?

* Andreas Jochens (aj@andaco.de) wrote:
> On 04-May-08 12:23, Alex Perry wrote:
> > 4.  Why can't we (as in the biarch and the pure64 teams individually)
> > simply adopt the proposed multiarch naming convention immediately ?
> > 
> > We'd put softlinks from /lib and /lib64 to the respective multiarch 
> > locations,
> I think that according to the current multiarch proposals the 
> correct multiarch library paths would be /lib/x86_64-linux and 
> /lib/i386-linux. 

Something along those lines, yes.

> We could make /lib64 a symlink to /lib/x86_64-linux, but what about 
> /lib/i386-linux? A kind of circular symlink from /lib to /lib/i386-linux?
> The same would apply for the /usr/lib64 and /usr/lib paths.

That'd be why we need to have a dh_installlib or whatever it's going to
be which will put the libraries into the correct places.

> This seems to be a general weakness of the current multiarch proposals.

Not really.  It does mean library packages will need to be changed, but
that's true pretty much no matter what you do.  The goal at the moment
is to minimize the number of changes that need to be made and to make it
as simple as possible to implement the changes.  Then we'll need to go
through and update all of them.

This would also be why we're not going to do this for pure64.

> Maybe the current multiarch proposals should be changed to use the 
> following paths:
> /x86_64-linux/lib
> /x86_64-linux/usr/lib

Hell no.

> This kind of altered multiarch approach would make your proposal for 
> using symbolic links to the correct locations possible, i.e.
> /lib -> /x86_64-linux/lib
> /usr/lib -> /x86_64-linux/usr/lib

No, no, no.  Forget it, that's nasty.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: